English is no longer the language of the web(qz.com)
qz.com
English is no longer the language of the web
http://qz.com/96054/english-is-no-longer-the-language-of-the-web/
9 comments
I should perhaps add that I support English as a language & hope it prospers. Sure it lacks some of the nuances of German, but as far as getting your point across it is unmatched (based on my limited 3 language experience).
> , but as far as getting your point across it is unmatched (based on my limited 3 language experience).
Don't know if it is common for germans to know three or more languages, or if this is a humble-brag...
Don't know if it is common for germans to know three or more languages, or if this is a humble-brag...
Well German schools push English pretty hard (American variety) so pretty much any <30 year old will speak passable English (plus its seen as cool). Pro travel tip that - always approach the young people.
>if this is a humble-brag...
Nah - unique circumstances. German background historically, but grew up in South Africa - where English and to a lesser extent Afrikaans is pretty much compulsory. Especially being white - people address me in either English or Afrikaans and expect that I reply in kind.
The school I went to alternated between English and German as the teaching medium - funded mainly by German though.
Edit: You should see some of the locals. They speak like 6+ languages. Sure they are closely related languages mostly but still...damn. Also...we've got more official languages than any other country.
>if this is a humble-brag...
Nah - unique circumstances. German background historically, but grew up in South Africa - where English and to a lesser extent Afrikaans is pretty much compulsory. Especially being white - people address me in either English or Afrikaans and expect that I reply in kind.
The school I went to alternated between English and German as the teaching medium - funded mainly by German though.
Edit: You should see some of the locals. They speak like 6+ languages. Sure they are closely related languages mostly but still...damn. Also...we've got more official languages than any other country.
As a Norwegian it is mandatory to attend English classes from an early age, and it is common to learn a 3rd language as well.
Most Norwegians go to our equivalent of high school (age 16 to 19). Those who wants to be accepted by a university choose a path that targets higher learning, where a 3rd language is one of the mandatory subjects. Many in my class had chosen optional classes for that language when they were 14, so that they could learn something else in their final year.
I can only speak for Norway, but I think this is common in other Scandinavian countries and probably many other European countries as well.
Most Norwegians go to our equivalent of high school (age 16 to 19). Those who wants to be accepted by a university choose a path that targets higher learning, where a 3rd language is one of the mandatory subjects. Many in my class had chosen optional classes for that language when they were 14, so that they could learn something else in their final year.
I can only speak for Norway, but I think this is common in other Scandinavian countries and probably many other European countries as well.
I'm from Norway myself and I think only a small minority of people who took a third language in videregående actually got to a level where you could say that they spoke/knew it.
I was among those who chose an German as an optional class when I was 14 so that I wouldn't have to take it in my third year of high school. Now I can say where I'm from and that I'm hungry, but hardly much more than that.
I was among those who chose an German as an optional class when I was 14 so that I wouldn't have to take it in my third year of high school. Now I can say where I'm from and that I'm hungry, but hardly much more than that.
According to http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_386_en.p... 28% of Germans know German and at least two other languages well enough to have a conversation.
Edit: I think actually 28% of Germans claim to know their native language and at least two other languages well enough to have a conversation (for some German is one of the other languages). In any case knowing 3 languages is pretty common in Germany.
Edit: I think actually 28% of Germans claim to know their native language and at least two other languages well enough to have a conversation (for some German is one of the other languages). In any case knowing 3 languages is pretty common in Germany.
Yep - English is really strong over there among the younger generation. Don't expect any Shakespeare - but any young person will make an effort to help (in English) if approached. Thats for the native looking Germans - I can't say regarding those with a Turkish background. I'd assume its the same though.
French is pretty strong too, but its seen as slightly more exotic whereas English is seen as a necessity/requirement for being "cool".
French is pretty strong too, but its seen as slightly more exotic whereas English is seen as a necessity/requirement for being "cool".
The workers at the German tourist offices (e.g. those near a Hauptbahnhof) speak 5 languages fluently: English, Spanish, French, Italian, German.
> Sometimes I think the thought just "is" as an abstract concept language-less concept. Sort-of like a geometric shape isn't German or English.
I've found that learning another language becomes incredibly easier if you can get to that point - linking words in the new language to the idea of the thing itself instead of the word for the thing in your mother tongue.
I've found that learning another language becomes incredibly easier if you can get to that point - linking words in the new language to the idea of the thing itself instead of the word for the thing in your mother tongue.
Frankly it took me years to get there (English) - and that was with teachers that were well flawless. Languages isn't really my strong suit and I doubt I'll learn any more.
Regarding German...I'd glad I learned it while I was a kid...its a bitch of language to learn. My school subsidized some of the poor locals - on the condition that they take German as 3rd language. Man those people suffered. Then again they got an education 10x better than anything they could have hoped for otherwise so fair trade.
Regarding German...I'd glad I learned it while I was a kid...its a bitch of language to learn. My school subsidized some of the poor locals - on the condition that they take German as 3rd language. Man those people suffered. Then again they got an education 10x better than anything they could have hoped for otherwise so fair trade.
Then the second language gets so ingrained that you start to struggle when people ask for direct translations between your mutual first language and the second language...
If Lessig was correct when he said that "code is law," I am not sure how anything other than English could be the language of the web. RFCs inform/direct/control the creation of code and RFC Series Format Requirements and Future Development[1] reads:
2.1.2
* The IETF works in ASCII (and English). The Internet research,
design, and development communities function almost entirely in
English. That strongly suggests that an ASCII document can be
properly rendered and read by everyone in the communities and
audiences of interest.
3.3
The official language of the RFC Series is English. ASCII is
required for all text that must be read to understand or
implement the technology described in the RFC. Use of non-
ASCII characters, expressed in a standard Unicode Encoding
Form (such as UTF-8), must receive explicit approval from the
document stream manager and will be allowed after the rules
for the common use cases are defined in the Style Guide.
Interesting to think about, but the publicly searchable web seems like the only meaningful number to me.
Ok, there may be a whole bunch of social media in some language each accessible to small groups of facebook users. Does that help the average speaker of that language find a manual, recipe, learn a programming language, etc?
Ok, there may be a whole bunch of social media in some language each accessible to small groups of facebook users. Does that help the average speaker of that language find a manual, recipe, learn a programming language, etc?
Good point.
The BIG obstacles to multi-language computing are computer keyboards, operating systems and spell-checkers/dictionaries.
It is very difficult to write in several languages on all common operating systems. Sure you can have an English keyboard and use some on-screen means for writing accented characters but that is a real pain if you want to write more than a few words.
There is no such thing as a "universal" keyboard. If there were, it would have to be enormous. Just look at the newspaper typesetting keyboards for Chinese newspapers.
Most operating systems can be configured to handle a single language, but very awkward when you want to seamlessly switch to another.
Spell-checkers/dictionaries in other languages are not as capable, accurate as English ones.
So ... if we wish to promote real multi-lingual web, we really need to address these core issues. Having unicode and different character sets is but a very small part of the solution. There is lots more work to be done.
It is very difficult to write in several languages on all common operating systems. Sure you can have an English keyboard and use some on-screen means for writing accented characters but that is a real pain if you want to write more than a few words.
There is no such thing as a "universal" keyboard. If there were, it would have to be enormous. Just look at the newspaper typesetting keyboards for Chinese newspapers.
Most operating systems can be configured to handle a single language, but very awkward when you want to seamlessly switch to another.
Spell-checkers/dictionaries in other languages are not as capable, accurate as English ones.
So ... if we wish to promote real multi-lingual web, we really need to address these core issues. Having unicode and different character sets is but a very small part of the solution. There is lots more work to be done.
> Spell-checkers/dictionaries in other languages are not as capable, accurate as English ones.
But they are less needed in certain languages. If you know how a Spanish word is pronounced, you can probably guess how it is written. If you are uncertain of an English word... well I'd take a dictionary over memorizations and "rules of thumbs" when it comes to the gigantic mess that is English spelling.
But they are less needed in certain languages. If you know how a Spanish word is pronounced, you can probably guess how it is written. If you are uncertain of an English word... well I'd take a dictionary over memorizations and "rules of thumbs" when it comes to the gigantic mess that is English spelling.
That's very true. But when I need to write in a language that I'm not fluent in, it would be nice to have a competent spell checker, etc. For example, my Spanish pronunciation is rather poor, so chances are that I would also misspell words when I write them. And it is very easy to innocently write something which turns out to be rude or even vulgar.
It's a great point, but I think as long as most programming languages are chiefly written in English (I think?), the web will still be "English".
Which I guess is a question I am curious about - how widespread is foreign-language programming language use? Like, instead of "while" it's "正在", etc.?
Which I guess is a question I am curious about - how widespread is foreign-language programming language use? Like, instead of "while" it's "正在", etc.?
As a data point, when I worked in Japan, most of the code was written in English (variable names included - the language was mostly Java or PHP), with heavy commenting in Japanese. Granted, this may have been swayed from the fact that they often worked with Indian developers, but also, a lot of technical language in Japanese is adopted from English. Popular languages there are the same as anywhere else - Ruby's creator is Japanese, and a high school student I know there was being subjected to COBOL.
There is a Japanese programming language, Mind, which is a stack language written entirely in Japanese, though I don't think it ever gained popularity. It's kind of sad there hasn't been more exploration into this - there's a lot less impedance mismatch in going from Japanese (or Korean) to postfix than there is going from English to prefix.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-English-based_programming_l...
There is a Japanese programming language, Mind, which is a stack language written entirely in Japanese, though I don't think it ever gained popularity. It's kind of sad there hasn't been more exploration into this - there's a lot less impedance mismatch in going from Japanese (or Korean) to postfix than there is going from English to prefix.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-English-based_programming_l...
I find English much more suitable for naming programming "objects" then Cyrillic languages. I think it's due to the lack of case system, tendency to short wording and even ability to short these already short words further.
I wonder would it be simple to name program "things" in Japanese?
I wonder would it be simple to name program "things" in Japanese?
Well, the accent in on the content, not on the means by which websites were created.
Code I have encountered that was made in France most often used French variable names and comments, and documented in French if required otherwise. It shows that the language in which programming keywords are didn't influence those programmers enough to change the language in which they were thinking. (If that's the argument you are trying to make)
The code and comments I've seen in Finland have always been in English. France is probably an exception, as they value their own language a lot.
As another data point, in the Netherlands, both variable names and comments are in (atrociously bad) English.
For the record, I meant *If not required otherwise.
Why do you expect that the dominant language on the web will be the same as the language the keywords of most programming are in?
The importance of what language the keywords of a programming language is miniscule compared to what language the majority of the code is written in (standard library and such). I mean, let's say, 20-60 keywords in a language... that vocabulary is tiny compared to all the variable-names that you're going to encounter in the actual code that uses that language.
Besides, if the designers of the language actually would bother, then it seems easy for them to make the tokens/keywords of the language costumizable.
Now I'm assuming that you actually meant the programming language itself, and not the programming language and all the code that eventually surrounds it.
Anyway, this seems like saying that most taxi-drivers will speak German as long as the maintenance manual of the car that the mechanics use are written in German.
Besides, if the designers of the language actually would bother, then it seems easy for them to make the tokens/keywords of the language costumizable.
Now I'm assuming that you actually meant the programming language itself, and not the programming language and all the code that eventually surrounds it.
Anyway, this seems like saying that most taxi-drivers will speak German as long as the maintenance manual of the car that the mechanics use are written in German.
English is a (dominant) language of the web. Perhaps not quantitatively already, but qualitatively it still is.
Time to draw some attention to contracted languages (i.e. Esperanto). It would be a much more unbiased and time-saving choice for the world community.
Time to draw some attention to contracted languages (i.e. Esperanto). It would be a much more unbiased and time-saving choice for the world community.
Esperanto is far from "unbiased" - it's obviously extremely influenced by European languages. It's not a fundamentally great design either. E.g. no non-gender pronoun, for some reason. Use of diacritics and extra pronunciation rules are also a negative.
Moving to Esperanto would not save time at all, and would be significantly more difficult for the many people that now have to learn yet another very Euro-centric language with complicated. And, there's really very little benefit to switching.
Making up a language won't gain traction. Even most programmers can't figure out how to write/read decent programming languages Why on earth would we think the rest of humanity will accept it for spoken language? And at any rate, it'd have to be a lot better than Esperanto or alternatives for it to be worthwhile.
Moving to Esperanto would not save time at all, and would be significantly more difficult for the many people that now have to learn yet another very Euro-centric language with complicated. And, there's really very little benefit to switching.
Making up a language won't gain traction. Even most programmers can't figure out how to write/read decent programming languages Why on earth would we think the rest of humanity will accept it for spoken language? And at any rate, it'd have to be a lot better than Esperanto or alternatives for it to be worthwhile.
> Esperanto is far from "unbiased" - it's obviously extremely influenced by European languages.
I agree here! It's so much easier to learn for English or Spanish speaker. But still Chinese or Japanese speaker will learn Esperanto 10 times faster then English. Huge improvement.
> E.g. no non-gender pronoun, for some reason.
Well, most languages including English doesn't have non-gender pronoun. Yet in Esperanto officially you can use "ĝi" (it) or "tiu" (that person) for referring to the person of unknown/unspecified gender. But people seem not to use it often.
>Use of diacritics and extra pronunciation rules are also a negative.
Majority of languages use diacritics or non-latin writing system and steel doing fine. It's not that hard. But as a trade-off you get one sound - one letter philosophy.
> Moving to Esperanto would not save time at all, and would be significantly more difficult for the many people that now have to learn yet another very Euro-centric language with complicated. And, there's really very little benefit to switching.
Moving to Esperanto is like moving from Latin numbers to Arabic. Yes, sorry, it will require at least some learning to use.
> Making up a language won't gain traction. Even most programmers can't figure out how to write/read decent programming languages
We don't need most to create something good.
> Why on earth would we think the rest of humanity will accept it for spoken language?
I don't thing so. But there are good reasons mentioned in this comment.
> And at any rate, it'd have to be a lot better than Esperanto or alternatives for it to be worthwhile.
It's pretty awesome, really. I was skeptical too until I tried.
I agree here! It's so much easier to learn for English or Spanish speaker. But still Chinese or Japanese speaker will learn Esperanto 10 times faster then English. Huge improvement.
> E.g. no non-gender pronoun, for some reason.
Well, most languages including English doesn't have non-gender pronoun. Yet in Esperanto officially you can use "ĝi" (it) or "tiu" (that person) for referring to the person of unknown/unspecified gender. But people seem not to use it often.
>Use of diacritics and extra pronunciation rules are also a negative.
Majority of languages use diacritics or non-latin writing system and steel doing fine. It's not that hard. But as a trade-off you get one sound - one letter philosophy.
> Moving to Esperanto would not save time at all, and would be significantly more difficult for the many people that now have to learn yet another very Euro-centric language with complicated. And, there's really very little benefit to switching.
Moving to Esperanto is like moving from Latin numbers to Arabic. Yes, sorry, it will require at least some learning to use.
> Making up a language won't gain traction. Even most programmers can't figure out how to write/read decent programming languages
We don't need most to create something good.
> Why on earth would we think the rest of humanity will accept it for spoken language?
I don't thing so. But there are good reasons mentioned in this comment.
> And at any rate, it'd have to be a lot better than Esperanto or alternatives for it to be worthwhile.
It's pretty awesome, really. I was skeptical too until I tried.
A Chinese would rather learn English and trade with most of the world (then Spanish, and trade with 400M people), than learn Esperanto even if it's "easier."
Besides, once you've learned Chinese, any European language with an alphabet looks easy to learn.
Besides, once you've learned Chinese, any European language with an alphabet looks easy to learn.
> Besides, once you've learned Chinese, any European language with an alphabet looks easy to learn.
Well, there is the fact that Chinese children learn Pinyin (Chinese romanization) in school. Of course Pinyin attributes different sounds to the letters of the alphabet than Western European languages do, but at least they've already seen the characters when they start learning.
Well, there is the fact that Chinese children learn Pinyin (Chinese romanization) in school. Of course Pinyin attributes different sounds to the letters of the alphabet than Western European languages do, but at least they've already seen the characters when they start learning.
Current state of affairs is understandable.
I was answering to the points regarding Esperanto rationale.
Then again, there is a lot of grades of "easy" - like 10 months easy vs 5 years easy.
Then again, there is a lot of grades of "easy" - like 10 months easy vs 5 years easy.
Esperanto wouldn't save any time. Actually, it would waste huge amounts of time, because billions of people would need to suddenly learn a new language.
It's not how the world works. Billions will not wake up at the morning and start doing something new.
But it's possible over time. For instance, in Europe place of lingva franca took Latin, then French, then German, then English. English just happen to be lucky to arise in time of globalization and the internet.
I speak 3 languages and after trying Esperanto I saw that claims that it can be learned in 1/10th of time required to learn English (or 1/20th Chinese) are true.
Seems irrational to me that majority of the population wanting to join the world community have to learn language 10 times harder with having little chance of being fluent in it.
But it's possible over time. For instance, in Europe place of lingva franca took Latin, then French, then German, then English. English just happen to be lucky to arise in time of globalization and the internet.
I speak 3 languages and after trying Esperanto I saw that claims that it can be learned in 1/10th of time required to learn English (or 1/20th Chinese) are true.
Seems irrational to me that majority of the population wanting to join the world community have to learn language 10 times harder with having little chance of being fluent in it.
Most contracted languages in existence are ridiculous. Esperanto is especially bad: it's just a jumble of Germanic and Romance languages that is just as difficult for a native speaker of a non-Indo-European language to learn as the languages it steals from.
In actual fact, English as a lingua franca isn't all that bad. It's a creole (of sorts) and therefore has a relatively simple grammar. The drawback to English is the fact that it's a Germanic creole and that Germanic languages have a comparatively large number of phonemes to work with. It would probably be more useful to most people in the world if a choice were made to go for a creole with a more reasonable number of phonemes, such as Swahili, Indonesian/Malay or Tok Pisin. Until that happens, however, using English is quite a reasonable thing to do.
In actual fact, English as a lingua franca isn't all that bad. It's a creole (of sorts) and therefore has a relatively simple grammar. The drawback to English is the fact that it's a Germanic creole and that Germanic languages have a comparatively large number of phonemes to work with. It would probably be more useful to most people in the world if a choice were made to go for a creole with a more reasonable number of phonemes, such as Swahili, Indonesian/Malay or Tok Pisin. Until that happens, however, using English is quite a reasonable thing to do.
> Most contracted languages in existence are ridiculous.
You can call Esperanto ridiculous, but it's used in all aspects of life. It has a good poetry. I find its internet terms actually better then in some non-English languages. There are several native Esperanto speakers. For instance, George Soros.
> Esperanto is especially bad: it's just a jumble of Germanic and Romance languages
Well, English is a jumble of Germanic, Latin, and French. Doesn't make it bad though (I do love English very much, it's beautiful).
>... that is just as difficult for a native speaker of a non-Indo-European language to learn as the languages it steals from.
You are very wrong. See below.
> In actual fact, English as a lingua franca isn't all that bad. It's a creole (of sorts) and therefore has a relatively simple grammar. The drawback to English is the fact that it's a Germanic creole and that Germanic languages have a comparatively large number of phonemes to work with. It would probably be more useful to most people in the world if a choice were made to go for a creole with a more reasonable number of phonemes, such as Swahili, Indonesian/Malay or Tok Pisin. Until that happens, however, using English is quite a reasonable thing to do.
English is pretty hard language. It's harder to see this fact if you are a native speaker. But here are some benefits in learning of Esperanto vs English:
1) Much simple grammar with no exceptions. For instance, no irregular verbs. 2) Phonetic spelling. https://www.google.com/search?q=english+fish&safe=off&client... 3) Consistent word forming. For instance, compare: tree/forest/gamekeep vs arbo/arbaro/arbaristo, where 'aro' means collection, 'isto' means professional. 4) Tons of other goodies, I won't write it here.
You can call Esperanto ridiculous, but it's used in all aspects of life. It has a good poetry. I find its internet terms actually better then in some non-English languages. There are several native Esperanto speakers. For instance, George Soros.
> Esperanto is especially bad: it's just a jumble of Germanic and Romance languages
Well, English is a jumble of Germanic, Latin, and French. Doesn't make it bad though (I do love English very much, it's beautiful).
>... that is just as difficult for a native speaker of a non-Indo-European language to learn as the languages it steals from.
You are very wrong. See below.
> In actual fact, English as a lingua franca isn't all that bad. It's a creole (of sorts) and therefore has a relatively simple grammar. The drawback to English is the fact that it's a Germanic creole and that Germanic languages have a comparatively large number of phonemes to work with. It would probably be more useful to most people in the world if a choice were made to go for a creole with a more reasonable number of phonemes, such as Swahili, Indonesian/Malay or Tok Pisin. Until that happens, however, using English is quite a reasonable thing to do.
English is pretty hard language. It's harder to see this fact if you are a native speaker. But here are some benefits in learning of Esperanto vs English:
1) Much simple grammar with no exceptions. For instance, no irregular verbs. 2) Phonetic spelling. https://www.google.com/search?q=english+fish&safe=off&client... 3) Consistent word forming. For instance, compare: tree/forest/gamekeep vs arbo/arbaro/arbaristo, where 'aro' means collection, 'isto' means professional. 4) Tons of other goodies, I won't write it here.
I think you're missing the point. A creole language, which English is, after a fashion, is a language that comes about when speakers of different languages come together and come up with something that's intelligible to speakers of both languages(1). It is by its very nature simple. Grammatical complexity is very much reduced and the phonology converges on what is pronouncable by all speakers of the new language (and therefore is reduced in complexity as well.
Now I'll grant you that the differences between Old English and Old French aren't that large, which probably accounts to English being relatively complex for a creole language, but if you compare English grammar and phonology to that of related non-creole languages such as German, Danish or French, you'll find in English they're much, much simpler. Not as simple as in Indonesian/Malay (which jumbles Arabic, Sanskrit and a bunch of Austronesian languages) or Tok Pisin (which jumbles English and a bunch of mutually unrelated Papuan tongues) but at least as Germanic languages go, English is fairly easy to learn.
Of course Esperanto is a jumble as well, but it's a jumble that is entirely artificial. I'd argue that a natural creole such as English or Swahili is superior: it's developed over dozens of years by a large number of speakers of widely differing skill levels whereas Esperanto was thought up by a small number of highly skilled language experts.
I'll agree with you that for native speakers of Indo-European langues (like mine, which isn't English, by the way), Esperanto is easy to learn and use. But my point is it is not easy to learn for people who aren't native speakers of an Indo-European language and that if you're going to make these people learn an Indo-European language anyway, you might as well just make it English.
(1) technically speaking, that's a pidgin, of course. But once the pidgin starts having native speakers, it becomes a creole, so the point still stands
edit: typo
Now I'll grant you that the differences between Old English and Old French aren't that large, which probably accounts to English being relatively complex for a creole language, but if you compare English grammar and phonology to that of related non-creole languages such as German, Danish or French, you'll find in English they're much, much simpler. Not as simple as in Indonesian/Malay (which jumbles Arabic, Sanskrit and a bunch of Austronesian languages) or Tok Pisin (which jumbles English and a bunch of mutually unrelated Papuan tongues) but at least as Germanic languages go, English is fairly easy to learn.
Of course Esperanto is a jumble as well, but it's a jumble that is entirely artificial. I'd argue that a natural creole such as English or Swahili is superior: it's developed over dozens of years by a large number of speakers of widely differing skill levels whereas Esperanto was thought up by a small number of highly skilled language experts.
I'll agree with you that for native speakers of Indo-European langues (like mine, which isn't English, by the way), Esperanto is easy to learn and use. But my point is it is not easy to learn for people who aren't native speakers of an Indo-European language and that if you're going to make these people learn an Indo-European language anyway, you might as well just make it English.
(1) technically speaking, that's a pidgin, of course. But once the pidgin starts having native speakers, it becomes a creole, so the point still stands
edit: typo
> Grammatical complexity is very much reduced...
English may be easy for e.g. German speakers but English is not simple. Its rules are complex.
English grammar is not simple. It has what (12?) tenses. (on the contrary Russian has basically 3 tenses) And it's full of exceptions. Why 'I see', but I'm looking at you. There's simply no reason. It's an exception. Thousands of them.
> ...and the phonology converges on what is pronouncable by all speakers of the new language (and therefore is reduced in complexity as well.
Let's just take 2 sounds. Th as in this: "This sound, and its unvoiced counterpart, are rare phonemes. The great majority of European and Asian languages, such as German, French, Persian, Japanese, and Chinese, lack this sound."
Th as in "thing": "Among the more than 60 languages with over 10 million speakers, only English, Standard Arabic, Spanish (Spain only), Burmese, and Greek have [it]"
> Of course Esperanto is a jumble as well, but it's a jumble that is entirely artificial.
Artificial != bad. We have tons of artificial things in our life that are awesome!
> it's developed over dozens of years by a large number of speakers of widely differing skill levels whereas Esperanto was thought up by a small number of highly skilled language experts.
That what happens when you let naturally develop: "In general, English spelling does not reflect* the sound changes in the pronunciation of the language that have occurred since the late fifteenth century."
> I'll agree with you that for native speakers of Indo-European langues (like mine, which isn't English, by the way), Esperanto is easy to learn and use. But my point is it is not easy to learn for people who aren't native speakers of an Indo-European language and that if you're going to make these people learn an Indo-European language anyway, you might as well just make it English.
Esperanto is several times faster to learn than English for anybody (given similar conditions). Linguists say it and I second that based on experience.
English may be easy for e.g. German speakers but English is not simple. Its rules are complex.
English grammar is not simple. It has what (12?) tenses. (on the contrary Russian has basically 3 tenses) And it's full of exceptions. Why 'I see', but I'm looking at you. There's simply no reason. It's an exception. Thousands of them.
> ...and the phonology converges on what is pronouncable by all speakers of the new language (and therefore is reduced in complexity as well.
Let's just take 2 sounds. Th as in this: "This sound, and its unvoiced counterpart, are rare phonemes. The great majority of European and Asian languages, such as German, French, Persian, Japanese, and Chinese, lack this sound."
Th as in "thing": "Among the more than 60 languages with over 10 million speakers, only English, Standard Arabic, Spanish (Spain only), Burmese, and Greek have [it]"
> Of course Esperanto is a jumble as well, but it's a jumble that is entirely artificial.
Artificial != bad. We have tons of artificial things in our life that are awesome!
> it's developed over dozens of years by a large number of speakers of widely differing skill levels whereas Esperanto was thought up by a small number of highly skilled language experts.
That what happens when you let naturally develop: "In general, English spelling does not reflect* the sound changes in the pronunciation of the language that have occurred since the late fifteenth century."
> I'll agree with you that for native speakers of Indo-European langues (like mine, which isn't English, by the way), Esperanto is easy to learn and use. But my point is it is not easy to learn for people who aren't native speakers of an Indo-European language and that if you're going to make these people learn an Indo-European language anyway, you might as well just make it English.
Esperanto is several times faster to learn than English for anybody (given similar conditions). Linguists say it and I second that based on experience.
> English grammar is not simple. It has what (12?) tenses. (on the contrary Russian has basically 3 tenses) And it's full of exceptions. Why 'I see', but I'm looking at you. There's simply no reason. It's an exception. Thousands of them.
This is actually not such a great example. Yes, English can express 12 tenses, but it doesn't have them in the sense that Russian, Italian or Czech do with affixes and declensions and what have you.
> Let's just take 2 sounds. etc
In this, of course you're right, but I didn't dispute this fact: English is a Germanic language and as such has a much larger number of phonemes than most other languages in the world (though it has far fewer than other Germanic languages, such as Dutch, Swedish and Norwegian, which have an - by global standards - insane number of vowels). Like I said, English isn't ideal, but it could have been worse. German, Polish or French (which has the added bonus of written French and spoken French being essentially two entirely different languages)would have been much worse. Indonesian/Malay, Tok Pisin or Swahili would have been much better in this regard, but alas, we have English.
> "In general, English spelling does not reflect* the sound changes in the pronunciation of the language that have occurred since the late fifteenth century."
Right. The ortography of English is atrocious and difficult to learn, even for native speakers. So there's that. It's definitely a point against English and it's a matter of taste whether this detracts significantly from its good points.
> Artificial != bad. We have tons of artificial things in our life that are awesome!
This, I think, is our true bone of contention. My argument is Esperanto brings very little to the table an organically developed Western European creole doesn't already have. You're free to disagree, of course, which brings me to:
> Esperanto is several times faster to learn than English for anybody (given similar conditions). Linguists say it and I second that based on experience.
Do you have sources for this? I'd be very interested to see the research on this. I would think the chief difficulty in learning a language that is wildly different from your native language is the fact that it's, well, wildly different from your native language, but I am very much open to evidence that learning a language from an entirely different language family than your own becomes easier if that language is rigorously structured and cleaned up instead of being merely an example of a worse is better organic jumble.
This is actually not such a great example. Yes, English can express 12 tenses, but it doesn't have them in the sense that Russian, Italian or Czech do with affixes and declensions and what have you.
> Let's just take 2 sounds. etc
In this, of course you're right, but I didn't dispute this fact: English is a Germanic language and as such has a much larger number of phonemes than most other languages in the world (though it has far fewer than other Germanic languages, such as Dutch, Swedish and Norwegian, which have an - by global standards - insane number of vowels). Like I said, English isn't ideal, but it could have been worse. German, Polish or French (which has the added bonus of written French and spoken French being essentially two entirely different languages)would have been much worse. Indonesian/Malay, Tok Pisin or Swahili would have been much better in this regard, but alas, we have English.
> "In general, English spelling does not reflect* the sound changes in the pronunciation of the language that have occurred since the late fifteenth century."
Right. The ortography of English is atrocious and difficult to learn, even for native speakers. So there's that. It's definitely a point against English and it's a matter of taste whether this detracts significantly from its good points.
> Artificial != bad. We have tons of artificial things in our life that are awesome!
This, I think, is our true bone of contention. My argument is Esperanto brings very little to the table an organically developed Western European creole doesn't already have. You're free to disagree, of course, which brings me to:
> Esperanto is several times faster to learn than English for anybody (given similar conditions). Linguists say it and I second that based on experience.
Do you have sources for this? I'd be very interested to see the research on this. I would think the chief difficulty in learning a language that is wildly different from your native language is the fact that it's, well, wildly different from your native language, but I am very much open to evidence that learning a language from an entirely different language family than your own becomes easier if that language is rigorously structured and cleaned up instead of being merely an example of a worse is better organic jumble.
> Like I said, English isn't ideal, but it could have been worse.
I agree. Of course it could've been more complex. But it could be also so much easy. (BTW, I love English as it is. including sound, grammar and pronunciation).
> Do you have sources for this? I'd be very interested to see the research on this. I would think the chief difficulty in learning a language that is wildly different from your native language is the fact that it's, well, wildly different from your native language, but I am very much open to evidence that learning a language from an entirely different language family than your own becomes easier if that language is rigorously structured and cleaned up instead of being merely an example of a worse is better organic jumble.
Ok, now I see your point! Regarding evidence, first let me assure you that whoever has been learning second language and spent just a week looking into Esperanto will need no evidence of the mentioned fact. You don't need much evidence that it's more easy to add Arabic numerals than Roman. After my introduction to English I tried study German, and then Esperanto. When I read the latter's grammar rules and word formation rules I just thought "wtf, can a language be so straightforward?!".
Maybe because it's so obvious for anyone spending week of learning Esperanto I haven't heard of experiments trying to prove it. But were experiments to confirm interesting effect that "studying Esperanto for one year and then, say, French for three results in greater proficiency in French than studying French for four years" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaedeutic_value_of_Esperant...
Here is interesting video regarding simplicity of Eo by credited expert: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YHALnLV9XU
Here's just how Chinese Monk speaks Eo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZcwpCgzMUk
I agree. Of course it could've been more complex. But it could be also so much easy. (BTW, I love English as it is. including sound, grammar and pronunciation).
> Do you have sources for this? I'd be very interested to see the research on this. I would think the chief difficulty in learning a language that is wildly different from your native language is the fact that it's, well, wildly different from your native language, but I am very much open to evidence that learning a language from an entirely different language family than your own becomes easier if that language is rigorously structured and cleaned up instead of being merely an example of a worse is better organic jumble.
Ok, now I see your point! Regarding evidence, first let me assure you that whoever has been learning second language and spent just a week looking into Esperanto will need no evidence of the mentioned fact. You don't need much evidence that it's more easy to add Arabic numerals than Roman. After my introduction to English I tried study German, and then Esperanto. When I read the latter's grammar rules and word formation rules I just thought "wtf, can a language be so straightforward?!".
Maybe because it's so obvious for anyone spending week of learning Esperanto I haven't heard of experiments trying to prove it. But were experiments to confirm interesting effect that "studying Esperanto for one year and then, say, French for three results in greater proficiency in French than studying French for four years" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaedeutic_value_of_Esperant...
Here is interesting video regarding simplicity of Eo by credited expert: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YHALnLV9XU
Here's just how Chinese Monk speaks Eo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZcwpCgzMUk
As a geek, I would vote for Lojban instead because it's syntatically unambiguous ;-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban
Yes, it may be cool but it's not designed to be easy (for humans).
Thus it's a very bad candidate for lingva franca.
Happens to every medium.
It sure does.
Some of the issues are technical and others are cultural.
This thread focuses on the cultural issues and largely overlooks the technical issues. That is, operating systems are only convenient in a single language. Try using a French notebook with French keyboard to write English, especially if you are used to the QWERT layout !
Some of the issues are technical and others are cultural.
This thread focuses on the cultural issues and largely overlooks the technical issues. That is, operating systems are only convenient in a single language. Try using a French notebook with French keyboard to write English, especially if you are used to the QWERT layout !
Good for them. I think this trend will discourage monoculturalism.
Personally I don't care too much what language I'm using (I only have English and my native tongue to use). But frankly I'm fed up with the amerocentric (not a word) content that I go through. I'm fed up with reading about things that interest me on an international platform and having to endure a majority of America-colored views and experiences of everything. I'm tired of reading about slightly-technical/non-technical opinion pieces having to do with programming, and the writing clearly being about some American issue. I'm tired of all my uni-level books being American "International Edition" textbooks with examples ridden with calculating the mean and standard deviation of some GPA's (stats), flights between Phoenix, NYC, Miami, LA etc (graph theory) [insert common knowledge to anyone who has lived in the US].
This wouldn't be different if all of these things had been simply translated to my native tongue.
All of this might seem petty, but I'm tired of being a foreigner on the Web that I frequent. And a foreigner in the same damn country each time, at that
Personally I don't care too much what language I'm using (I only have English and my native tongue to use). But frankly I'm fed up with the amerocentric (not a word) content that I go through. I'm fed up with reading about things that interest me on an international platform and having to endure a majority of America-colored views and experiences of everything. I'm tired of reading about slightly-technical/non-technical opinion pieces having to do with programming, and the writing clearly being about some American issue. I'm tired of all my uni-level books being American "International Edition" textbooks with examples ridden with calculating the mean and standard deviation of some GPA's (stats), flights between Phoenix, NYC, Miami, LA etc (graph theory) [insert common knowledge to anyone who has lived in the US].
This wouldn't be different if all of these things had been simply translated to my native tongue.
All of this might seem petty, but I'm tired of being a foreigner on the Web that I frequent. And a foreigner in the same damn country each time, at that
I'm not sure I agree with that. I grew up with German as my mother tongue, but with a strong English environmental influence (TV, strangers on street etc). Both taught as 1st language in school.
It starts out with "thinking in one language, speaking another", but as you improve in both it just becomes a blur - to the point where I can't tell you whether the thought I just had was in English or German. Sometimes I think the thought just "is" as an abstract concept language-less concept. Sort-of like a geometric shape isn't German or English.